Poll of the Day > Free speech does not equal Hate speech

(+) Yeah! (+)

I've heard a lot of fascist alt-right supporters recently saying that their hatred and bigotry should fall under free speech and I'm here to let this board and the rest of the world know that we will not stand for that bullshit.

Free speech does not include your hatred and racist views, and we will silence anyone who dares oppose use.

You have been warned.

Gamerz4Justice posted...

fascist

Seems like you don't understand what this word means
---

Gamerz4Justice posted...

I've heard a lot of fascist alt-right supporters recently saying that their hatred and bigotry should fall under free speech

It literally does under the First Amendment. This isn't Canada, we believe in free speech. Also, it's ironic that you're accusing them of being fascist yet you're the one proposing to ban free speech. The mark of a free society is allowing speech people disagree with. The mark of a fascist society is only allowed approved speech.

Gamerz4Justice posted...

here to let this board and the rest of the world know that we will not stand for that bullshit.

Who's we? The troll alt army?

Gamerz4Justice posted...

Free speech does not include your hatred and racist views, and we will silence anyone who dares oppose use.

You have been warned.

Given that sounds like a threat, you might wind up being the one warned.
---

Gamerz4Justice posted...

we will silence anyone who dares oppose use [sic].

Sounding a bit like a fascist there: please report to your nearest face-punching station as per protocol.
---

I think the only things that it doesn't cover are sedition, incitements to violence and whatever yelling fire in a crowded room is.

Zeus posted...

This isn't Canada, we believe in free speech.

Apparently you don't, judging by your inference.

Literally every country in the world has speech restrictions; nowhere truly believes in free speech. For instance, I am not free to say - as a purely hypothetical example - something like "I intend to kill the president". Doing so will provoke a response from the government and could potentially result in jail time.

The only difference countries have is what speech is and isn't allowed and, contrary to what you're implying, the US has restrictions too.
---

I would love for people to expose to Zeus's work that he is a nazi sympathizer, if he even has a job.

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

This isn't Canada, we believe in free speech.

Apparently you don't, judging by your inference.

Literally every country in the world has speech restrictions; nowhere truly believes in free speech. For instance, I am not free to say - as a purely hypothetical example - something like "I intend to kill the president". Doing so will provoke a response from the government and could potentially result in jail time.

The only difference countries have is what speech is and isn't allowed and, contrary to what you're implying, the US has restrictions too.

This. ^^^
---

omfg... this is brilliant


its a new era potd.
---

Does anyone actually find this funny?
---

You're no better than the Nazis then.
---

Yellow posted...

Does anyone actually find this funny?

not yet. i dont know if you were here for the last time or not, but it had its moments, and it livened shit up. potd has been dead, but its actually becoming good again. give it time.
---

Ugh. I'm getting so tired of reading about nazis and racists and bigots everywhere.

Hell, in Sweden you get accused of being a nazi or a racist if you have the Swedish flag on your property.

Fucking ridiculous... >_>
---

So, basically, hate speech is not free speech and what constitutes hate speech is defined by you. You get final say in what is and is not hate speech free to change it as you whim. Anyone who disagrees has their speech labeled as hate speech. That... sounds pretty facist to me.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

This isn't Canada, we believe in free speech.

Apparently you don't, judging by your inference.

Literally every country in the world has speech restrictions; nowhere truly believes in free speech. For instance, I am not free to say - as a purely hypothetical example - something like "I intend to kill the president". Doing so will provoke a response from the government and could potentially result in jail time.

The only difference countries have is what speech is and isn't allowed and, contrary to what you're implying, the US has restrictions too.

Nice attempt to falsely conflate the issue to obfuscate the differences in a nation with actual free speech vs a heavily restricted one.
---

Lil69Leo posted...

I would love for people to expose

And I'd love for somebody to spread the kind of malicious lies about you that you're trying to spread about me and others in the hopes that maybe -- *just maybe* you'd learn not to be a bloody sociopath. That aside, I was amused by a NEET living on the dole trying to accuse others of not having a job. Stay classy, troll.

LeetCheet posted...

Ugh. I'm getting so tired of reading about nazis and racists and bigots everywhere.

Hell, in Sweden you get accused of being a nazi or a racist if you have the Swedish flag on your property.

Fucking ridiculous... >_>

tbh, leftist politics in a nutshell:


It's McCarthyism on crack.
---

You are free to say what you want, you are not allowed to make threats. If the words you say in the given context give reason to believe your intents are threatening, you get punished based on your intents, not your words.

Another example is you are allowed to cut someone open with a scalpel under the context of surgery (with proper qualifications and permissions), you are not allowed to cut someone open with a scalpel under the context of attempted murder. Use of a scalpel on a person isn't illegal, harming people with a scalpel is despite all the overlap.
---

This place is a fucking shell of what it once was.
---

Zeus posted...

And I'd love for somebody to spread the kind of malicious lies about you that you're trying to spread about me

I mean, you've yet to say anything about the Charlottesville Nazis except "technically, they're not really Nazis because I don't understand what 'neo-' means," without criticizing them at all. Being critical of Nazis is a sufficiently universal thing that not criticizing them is certainly cause to think that one might be inclined to side with them. It's really not hard to distance yourself from Nazis, if that's really something you like the sound of.
---

adjl posted...

Zeus posted...

And I'd love for somebody to spread the kind of malicious lies about you that you're trying to spread about me

I mean, you've yet to say anything about the Charlottesville Nazis except "technically, they're not really Nazis because I don't understand what 'neo-' means," without criticizing them at all. Being critical of Nazis is a sufficiently universal thing that not criticizing them is certainly cause to think that one might be inclined to side with them. It's really not hard to distance yourself from Nazis, if that's really something you like the sound of.

It's not "technically," it's completely and literally. And if you don't get that then it's *you* who don't understand what "neo-" means, which you can add to your long list of subjects you just don't fucking get. Nor is it "technical" that the crowd wasn't even entirely neo-nazis because not all white supremacists are neo-nazis and not everybody in the crowd was necessarily a white supremacist. More importantly, given that you've been called one in the past, I think you'd have more of an understanding for the wrongful application of the label.

At any rate, you're a shining example of the book

---

Lil69Leo posted...

I would love for people to expose to Zeus's work that he is a nazi sympathizer, if he even has a job.

"This Zeus feller that works for you supports free speech, and do you know who also favours free speech? The nazis!"
---

J_Dawg983 posted...

Lil69Leo posted...

I would love for people to expose to Zeus's work that he is a nazi sympathizer, if he even has a job.

"This Zeus feller that works for you supports free speech, and do you know who also favours free speech? The nazis!"

Making light of nazi sympathizers isn't a fun thing to do.

Lil69Leo posted...

Making light of nazi sympathizers isn't a fun thing to do.

He's making light of people who don't know what a nazi or a nazi sympathizer actually is. (eg, you. Granted, you're probably just trolling as usual.)
---

@Zeus
what does "neo" in "neo-nazi" mean

this is like the seventh time i've asked you, and likely going to be the seventh time you've ignored the question.
---

Blasted_Fury posted...

@ Zeus
what does "neo" in "neo-nazi" mean

this is like the seventh time i've asked you, and likely going to be the seventh time you've ignored the question.

@Blasted_Fury and his million rightly suspended & banned alts

This is the fifteenth time I've pointed it out to you: If a new word meant the same thing as a previous word, the new word wouldn't exist. Ergo feminazi, neo-nazi, and grammar-nazi don't mean Nazi. Nor do any of those individuals have membership in the Nazi party.
---

you literally did not answer my question.

again.

what does "neo" in "neo-nazi" mean.
---

Just because you didn't get the answer you wanted doesn't mean that the question wasn't answered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7leQB_Oe_k
---

Erik_P alt. Literally his MO.
---

Erik's penis never left PotD.
---

Blasted_Fury posted...

you literally did not answer my question.

again.

what does "neo" in "neo-nazi" mean.

New, as in not the old way.
---

Zeus posted...

Just because you didn't get the answer you wanted doesn't mean that the question wasn't answered.

it wasn't.

i specifically asked what "neo" means, and you gave some strawman paragraph that meant nothing in relation to what i asked.

again.

what does "neo" in "neo-nazi" mean.
---

Veedrock- posted...

Erik_P alt.

this would not surprise me in the least tbh
---

Zeus posted...

It's not "technically," it's completely and literally.

"Neo-nazi" means "Nazis in a post-WWII world." That is literally Nazis, and if you need the "neo-" to be added to specify that nobody used a time machine to travel back to the 1930's, I really don't know what to tell you.

Zeus posted...

Nor is it "technical" that the crowd wasn't even entirely neo-nazis because not all white supremacists are neo-nazis and not everybody in the crowd was necessarily a white supremacist.

Frankly, if somebody's willingly marching alongside swastika flags, they don't get to complain about being lumped in with Nazis. If you show up to a protest, and Nazis show up to march with you, go home and rethink your position, because having Nazis agree with you should be a pretty major red flag that you don't want to be involved in such shenanigans.

Zeus posted...

At any rate, you're a shining example of the book

That's demonstrably false. I never liken people to Hitler because I don't like them, except perhaps occasionally to be facetious (and even then, part of that facetiousness is that I don't actually dislike them). I liken people to Hitler or Nazis when they act in a manner comparable to Hitler or Nazis, as is pretty standard protocol for drawing comparisons.

Now, I can't help but notice that you still haven't moved on from your pedantic deflection and actually criticized the neo-Nazis in question, or even what you would consider to be true Nazis. Again, that's an awfully convincing basis for calling you a Nazi sympathizer.
---

Blasted_Fury posted...

Zeus posted...

Just because you didn't get the answer you wanted doesn't mean that the question wasn't answered.

it wasn't.

i specifically asked what "neo" means, and you gave some strawman paragraph that meant nothing in relation to what i asked.

again.

what does "neo" in "neo-nazi" mean.

No, I answered the question behind your line of reasoning, which is the only question that matters. The fact that you disagree or, more likely, just flat out fail to understand it doesn't change anything. However, if you're playing the "YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION GAME!" then why would you invent a second term that means exactly the same thing as the first term? Hint: You wouldn't.

Veedrock- posted...

Erik_P alt. Literally his MO.

Accuses the literal troll alt who, humorously enough, is accusing the wrong person of Eriking.

adjl posted...

"Neo-nazi" means "Nazis in a post-WWII world." That is literally Nazis, and if you need the "neo-" to be added to specify that nobody used a time machine to travel back to the 1930's, I really don't know what to tell you.

If it didn't need the "neo" as you rather wrongly and stupidly suggest, people wouldn't fucking use the "neo." However, not only was the "neo" invented, but it's widely used. More importantly, the word "Nazi" refers SPECIFICALLY to a now-nonexistent political party. You can't have membership in something that doesn't exist.

But, given that you're historically ignorant, I don't expect you to understand any of it. But you know who does understand it? Pretty much everybody except for you and your SJW cronies. Even the SPLC draws a distinction.

adjl posted...

Frankly, if somebody's willingly marching alongside swastika flags, they don't get to complain about being lumped in with Nazis. If you show up to a protest, and Nazis show up to march with you, go home and rethink your position, because having Nazis agree with you should be a pretty major red flag that you don't want to be involved in such shenanigans.

For starters, the fact that the Nazis were associated with socialism and the suppression of free speech hasn't stopped you from supporting those principles; if anything, you've doubled down on them. And these are the cosplaying neo-nazis wishing that they could have joined the party, but the LITERAL party that embodies the beliefs you're supporting. Not red enough of a flag to you though, eh?

Otherwise the fact that they're racists doesn't automatically mean that they're going to be wrong 100% of the time and on every issue. The only people wrong 100% of the time are you, Helly, and Erik.

adjl posted...

Now, I can't help but notice that you still haven't moved on from your pedantic deflection and actually criticized the neo-Nazis in question, or even what you would consider to be true Nazis.

Nobody considers them true Nazis except for you and your SJW cronies.

adjl posted...

Again, that's an awfully convincing basis for calling you a N-word sympathizer.

Which, again, makes zero sense on every conceivable level.


---

Zeus posted...

why would you invent a second term that means exactly the same thing as the first term? Hint: You wouldn't.

Little, small.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Zeus posted...

why would you invent a second term that means exactly the same thing as the first term? Hint: You wouldn't.

Little, small.

First, the words "little" and "small" have different connotations and uses despite the similar nature. Second, not even close to being the same thing. If somebody could just join the Nazis, we wouldn't need the word neo-nazi. Nor does feminazi or grammar nazi mean Nazi. All of these words are nods to attributes associated with Nazism.

And, more generally, it's worth remembering that "little" and "small" date back to a time before standardized English.
---

Zeus posted...

why would you invent a second term that means exactly the same thing as the first term? Hint: You wouldn't.

There's literally an entire class of reference text devoted to English words that mean the same thing as other words, and a term to describe such words.

Zeus posted...

If it didn't need the "neo" as you rather wrongly and stupidly suggest, people wouldn't f***ing use the "neo."

And they typically don't, because that's how implications work. "Neo-" is only really necessary when you do actually need to differentiate them from the historical party. Most of the time, there isn't going to be any ambiguity for leaving it out.

Zeus posted...

For starters, the fact that the Nazis were associated with socialism and the suppression of free speech hasn't stopped you from supporting those principles

Nazis didn't really support socialism. Including "socialist" in the name was largely just an effort to attract younger, disenfranchised workers who liked the sound of it; the party itself was modeled pretty much entirely off of Italian fascism.

Zeus posted...

Otherwise the fact that they're racists doesn't automatically mean that they're going to be wrong 100% of the time and on every issue.

No, but it does mean they're assholes, and you should probably avoid hanging out with them if you want to be taken seriously.

Zeus posted...

Nobody considers them true Nazis except for you and your SJW cronies.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Try again.

Zeus posted...

Which, again, makes zero sense on every conceivable level.

It's hardly conclusive, but if somebody spends this much time resisting criticizing Nazis, that definitely suggests they actually like Nazis. Again, it's very simple to fix this. Pretty much everyone has an easy time saying "Nazis suck." Because, you know, Nazis suck. That is, unless you don't actually feel that Nazis suck, in which case you're sympathizing with Nazis, which - by definition - would make you a Nazi sympathizer.
---

adjl posted...

No, but it does mean they're assholes, and you should probably avoid hanging out with them if you want to be taken seriously.

You have to be an asshole to disregard everything someone says due to the company they keep.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

No, but it does mean they're assholes, and you should probably avoid hanging out with them if you want to be taken seriously.

You have to be an asshole to disregard everything someone says due to the company they keep.

Somebody's choice of friends is a pretty reliable indicator of their overall character, which in turn plays a large role in how much stock you should put in what they say.
---

Zeus posted...

No, I answered the question behind your line of reasoning, which is the only question that matters.

the fuck are you talking about dude

just answer my question, not the "question behind your line of reasoning"

that doesn't even make sense

why won't you tell me what "neo", like as in "neo-nazi", means.

just say it.
---

Wow, Andrew/adjl is ripping through Zeus.
---

adjl posted...

Somebody's choice of friends is a pretty reliable indicator of their overall character, which in turn plays a large role in how much stock you should put in what they say.

Making generalisations is pretty insulting and is basically what Hitler did to the Jews, so I'd be a little less cavalier calling other people Nazis if I were you.
---

Melon_Master posted...

Wow, Andrew/adjl is ripping through Zeus.

Honestly, it's not that hard. He's kind of been unraveling since Charlottesville. I think the cognitive dissonance is getting to him, coupled with Erik levels of being unable to accept being wrong.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

Somebody's choice of friends is a pretty reliable indicator of their overall character, which in turn plays a large role in how much stock you should put in what they say.

Making generalisations is pretty insulting and is basically what Hitler did to the Jews, so I'd be a little less cavalier calling other people Nazis if I were you.

Making generalisations is the basis for almost all day-to-day function. The problem arises when those generalisations are too far-reaching (as is the case in your post, as you've managed to overgeneralize generalisation), or when there's inadequate basis for generalizing. Generally speaking, it's safe to say that there are more convincing ways to make a point than to march with Nazis, so anyone looking to make a point should probably go home and try something else if a bunch of Nazis show up to the march.
---

adjl posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

Somebody's choice of friends is a pretty reliable indicator of their overall character, which in turn plays a large role in how much stock you should put in what they say.

Making generalisations is pretty insulting and is basically what Hitler did to the Jews, so I'd be a little less cavalier calling other people Nazis if I were you.

Making generalisations is the basis for almost all day-to-day function. The problem arises when those generalisations are too far-reaching (as is the case in your post, as you've managed to overgeneralize generalisation), or when there's inadequate basis for generalizing. Generally speaking, it's safe to say that there are more convincing ways to make a point than to march with Nazis, so anyone looking to make a point should probably go home and try something else if a bunch of Nazis show up to the march.

The reach of a generalisation isn't for one person to decide, particularly when one person's no-brainer is looking "the line" in the rear view mirror to another. Try not to group everyone you don't like in one group and try to oppress them, it doesn't reflect well on you. Use more tact.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The reach of a generalisation isn't for one person to decide,

It's usually open for some degree of debate, if one person disagrees with what another person feels is suitable. If done intelligently, though, a generalization will have some empirical basis, which can be cited as needed.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Try not to group everyone you don't like in one group and try to oppress them,

I don't, typically. Grouping people who voluntarily associate with Nazis with those Nazis isn't particularly unreasonable in my books, though (especially when they're saying things that are in line with Nazi ideals), and there's plenty of historical basis for telling Nazis where to stuff their ideas. Frankly, if there's any single group I'm never going to sympathize with when they complain about being oppressed, it's Nazis.
---

Blasted_Fury posted...

Zeus posted...

No, I answered the question behind your line of reasoning, which is the only question that matters.

the fuck are you talking about dude

just answer my question, not the "question behind your line of reasoning"

that doesn't even make sense

why won't you tell me what "neo", like as in "neo-nazi", means.

just say it.

Good luck getting an actual answer.
---

Zeus posted...

Nice attempt to falsely conflate the issue to obfuscate the differences in a nation with actual free speech vs a heavily restricted one.

If you think Canada constitutes a nation where free speech is heavily restricted, you badly need to get out more.

Zeus posted...

tbh, leftist politics in a nutshell:


It's McCarthyism on crack.

...says the "left-leaning centrist".

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You are free to say what you want, you are not allowed to make threats. If the words you say in the given context give reason to believe your intents are threatening, you get punished based on your intents, not your words.

That can be said of all restrictions on free speech.

PyroBlade1985 posted...

OK T.C. serious post time.

I admit it, it sucks. There are hateful people out there with horrid views. But you need to accept that with freedom of speech.

You don't actually. Lots of places in the world stipulate that hate speech falls under the same category as threats or libel or slander - speech that is unacceptable and destructive and therefore banned. And, honestly, I don't really see anything wrong with that. I'm fine with the status quo, where bigots are allowed to air their views; but if the government decided tomorrow that it was banning discriminatory hate speech, I wouldn't be the slightest bit bothered.

See, from where I sit, there's a common misconception in the world (actually, mostly in America, but it does sometimes pop up elsewhere) today that Free Speech is meant to be end goal; this is not true. Free Speech is not an end, it is a means to a greater end. It is cherished and protected not because it is a great ideal on its own, but because it underpins so many more of our far more important rights - freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom to voice disagreement with the government without risking jail time. We have free speech because people decided that was the best way to support the flow of ideas and information, with the intended purpose of that flow being personal and cultural progress and improvement. But there's nothing anywhere that says that absolute unlimited freedom of speech is needed for that goal; certainly I agree that restrictions should be minimized and never implemented without very careful consideration, but if we conclude that certain ideas have no redeeming value and serve only to significantly impede or destroy progress, there is nothing saying those ideals cannot or should not be restricted.

And hate speech is just such an idea. Nothing constructive comes out of it, there is no glorious future or greater good at the end of that road. It is one of the rare ideas that is so completely and destructively wrong that I see absolutely nothing wrong with saying that it should be restricted.
---

Zeus posted...

It's not "technically," it's completely and literally.

Nope, them's Nazis.

Check the second definition:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nazi?s=t

Zeus posted...

At any rate, you're a shining example of the book

How many times are you going to post that picture in that thread?

Did you just find it and think it's really witty or something?

Zeus posted...

But, given that you're historically ignorant, I don't expect you to understand any of it. But you know who does understand it? Pretty much everybody except for you and your SJW cronies.

Apparently Republican lawmakers are SJWs now, because about two dozen of them have signalled their agreement with what adjl said.

Zeus posted...

For starters, the fact that the Nazis were associated with socialism

That Nazis were associated with socialism in the sense that they liked to kill socialists. Their main rivals for much of their pre-war existence was the communist party and the democratic socialists.
---